Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why is everyone so upset over tuition fees reform? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PerigeeApogee)
    I don't have any objections either - as long as tax was reduced. I want to live in a country where you are either not taxed at all and everything is privatised (apart from the basics, like policing), or you are taxed quite highly, but you see all the money flooding back into society.

    We live in a society where we are taxed to the hills, and see none of it coming back.

    Either privatise healthcare and education and reduce tax so we can pay for it. Or continue to tax us and pay for it.


    Yes, but no longer will the taxpayer foot the bill for it.

    I was just saying, if you're a smoker, and you need a lung transplant, why not have the same system where we pay for the treatment for you, but then tax you for the rest of your life to pay it back?

    Why is it so much more important for a smoker to get a lung transplant than for a student to get his degree funded?
    Your logic is pretty flawed on a number of counts.....

    To maintain an NHS is an increadibly difficult and expensive thing....which we pay in part for and i dont know how much actual experience you have for it but it is actually very good indeed....so i beg to differ that we dont see any of the money coming back - it is overall a great institution that we should support and be proud of.

    You say we are taxed to the hills but see none of it...try living in another country for a bit....things are pretty good in the UK i can tell you. The only thing i think is way over taxed is petrol.

    We already have a private healthcare system...fully privitising it would leave us in the situation they have in the US. Your argument is basically saying take the money for disagvantaged people to pay for the sick who cant afford it, and give it to the students? I dont think this argument would get very far with the general public...

    Why are you so obsessed with smokers!!!! Treatment for smokers versus all other ailments treated in hospitals is miniscule!

    I would rather save a life than give money to a greedy, spoilt ignoramus that thinks they are owed by society even though they havent actually contributed to it yet.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by profoflife)
    It is like any loan from a bank....they will send numerous reminders and then send the bayliffs in to just take it off you!
    That simply isn't true.
    You can't not pay it, it gets automatically taken off your income in the form of extra income tax.
    It isn't possible to default on a student loan.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't understand how this is going have the effect of reducing studets from poorer backgrounds in university, because don't forget, we wont be paying this back until AFTER we have left university. This means that essentially everyone will have similar amounts of debt, but by chosing to study for a degree, you will have a better chance of earning more money, hopefully counterbalancing the debt.

    Also, I agree that education should be free, but I can't justify that extending to tertiary education. University is totally optional, and we are not entitled to get a degree-it is our choice. I think that education to the age of 18 should be the best possible, and FREE.

    Thirdly, I'm not to sure about the argument that many seem to be taking-that the principle of paying for university is 'unfair'. I'm not sure that argument is valid in a system based on elitism, where fundimentally, those who have been to better schools go to better universities and then tend to earn the most.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yahyahyah)
    because we're not all ****ing losers
    The sheer wealth of wit on this site... it astounds me. :sigh:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TShadow383)
    That simply isn't true.
    You can't not pay it, it gets automatically taken off your income in the form of extra income tax.
    It isn't possible to default on a student loan.
    Thats true, sorry...i stand corrected - i had totally forgotten that it shows up on your P60 like NI and pension...even though it hasnt been that long since i paid mine off!

    ooopsss!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Because most are misinformed morons.

    Why shouldn't we pay for our education if not completely than by a massive contribution?

    I despise people that want it all paid for by the state.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scottpilgrim)
    I don't understand how this is going have the effect of reducing studets from poorer backgrounds in university, because don't forget, we wont be paying this back until AFTER we have left university. This means that essentially everyone will have similar amounts of debt, but by chosing to study for a degree, you will have a better chance of earning more money, hopefully counterbalancing the debt.

    Also, I agree that education should be free, but I can't justify that extending to tertiary education. University is totally optional, and we are not entitled to get a degree-it is our choice. I think that education to the age of 18 should be the best possible, and FREE.

    Thirdly, I'm not to sure about the argument that many seem to be taking-that the principle of paying for university is 'unfair'. I'm not sure that argument is valid in a system based on elitism, where fundimentally, those who have been to better schools go to better universities and then tend to earn the most.
    Everything you say is the pro argument in a nutshell.

    How old are you BTW?

    If you are an undergrad then you are showing a lot of maturity with your understanding of this and should try and influence your peers to get their heads around it.

    Well done that man!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    1. Education shouldn't be that expensive
    2. The rise in tuition fees meant that instead of taking a gap year, more people decided to apply for the Oxford course I love and thus there is more competition
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Two reasons:

    1 - There is a huge difference between £3000 and £9000. Some people feel that a student should make some contribution to their degree, but not as much as this government wants us to.

    2 - Party politics.

    1 - As long as the repayment terms are progressive I don't see the problem, and they have been signed off as such by the IFS.

    2 - Obviously. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I was actually for it because universities need more money. But it seems that with teaching grant cuts, universities won't be any better off. And with higher amounts the government has to lend, the amount that will be written off, the free tuition for poor kids and the higher payback salary, the government won't have significantly more money to play with even after the teaching grant cuts. And the students don't want to have that debt hanging over them. So if it doesn't help any of the 3 interested parties, I don't really see the point.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Because people could be graduated with £36,000 in debt with tuition fees alone. If they get maximum loan, then add around £16,000 to this, plus any overdraft and credit card they've usedto get by at times.

    It's all well and good saying you'll never pay it all back because the repayments are so small, but at the end of the day, this excessive borrowing is part of what got our economy into such a state, and if you thinking over a 4-year period these don't get back, you are talking potentially tens of billions of pounds owed.

    In addition to this, the government has cut HE budgets such as teaching and learning by up to 80%. These are astronomical cuts and universities are really going to struggle even with the rise in tuition fees. We're expecting to see the quality of teaching, access to materials, resources, facilities and support and assistance drop quite a bit.

    All in all, it's not going to direct affect me, but it's a crying shame.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It always amuses me that people insist that 'this is the best kind of debt to have', almost as if they would actually rather have student debt than no debt at all. Ultimately, the government are tripling the amount of money people will be in debt by, and obviously they're not happy about that because nobody wants to be in triple the amount of debt.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To argue my point it will be incredibly difficult for my family , my mum is unemployed and my father is a driving instructor who earns £3.40 an hour !!!!! regards james dawes
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PerigeeApogee)
    Private healthcare is better, and if we weren't taxed as much as we are, most of us would be able to afford it easily.

    Thats rubbish for a start...how is private health "better"? Its the same treatment and consultants, you just dont have to wait and you get a nicer room.

    Try Sweden, for example, where the tax is higher than it is in the UK - but none of the residents mind it. Everybody in Sweden pays taxes without grumble because the public services they get in return are first class.

    Would you like to pay £10 for a pint? Their healthcare system is no better than the UK. Their education system is no better, literacy rates are the same...and it snows a lot

    (Original post by PerigeeApogee)
    We do not get what we pay for with our government. The value of the services I receive is, at a push, 40% of what I pay for. If I paid for them privately, the value would be equal to the price.
    Where does 40% come from? How does value = price?? Perceived value?

    (Original post by PerigeeApogee)
    No, that wasn't my argument. The argument a lot of people use to justify the fees is 'why should taxpayers who won't directly benefit from higher education have to pay to fund it for those who will?', and my rebuttal to that is that if that's the logic you wish to use then people who don't use benefit directly from the NHS should be able to opt out of the tax that they pay which goes towards it.

    Secondly, if you fully privatised the healthcare system without changing the tax system accordingly, then yes, that's what we'd be doing - leaving disadvantaged people without medical care. However, if you reduced taxes in line with the removal of the NHS, then people would easily be able to afford private healthcare where they'll get REAL value for their money.
    You would have to model it....i'm not exactly sure what proportion of tax goes on the NHS...it wont be that much i fear.

    (Original post by PerigeeApogee)
    It's a ****ing example, you tit. The general just of it is to point out that if you apply the line of reasoning that taxpayers who don't go to university shouldn't foot the bill for those who do, then the same thing applies to the NHS, and I should get to ask myself the question - why should I foot the bill for the people going in and out of hospital, when I myself have never, ever been to hospital? And in future, when I do, it'll most likely be a private establishment?
    You will see one when your older, or when a police person wacks you for throwing your toys.

    (Original post by PerigeeApogee)
    Well if that's your own, personal, bias view of students and the place of higher education in society, then you're wrong. Students ARE the NHS. Students ARE medical researchers. Students ARE the inventors and entrepreneurs who make Britain economy tick. Students ARE the scientists and engineers that allow Britain to progress technologically, and as a knowledge base. Students are, without a doubt, one of the single most important groups of people in the country, and will contribute more to it than you are making out.
    How are students the NHS? I think you'll find they are grads....you need to come down from the clouds as you vision of students holding the key to the future of the world is deluded....I have many examples of non grads that are successful people in business, commerce and innovation.

    (Original post by PerigeeApogee)
    Good for you. You've totally missed the point of my post. Congrats.
    I can see you feel very passionatly about this, which is all good. Just try and see all perspectives and talk to people that have lived a little longer than you and know the world a little better than you so you can make objective conclusions and not ones fuelled by emotion.

    Good luck with paying your loan off
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by haha16)
    To argue my point it will be incredibly difficult for my family , my mum is unemployed and my father is a driving instructor who earns £3.40 an hour !!!!! regards james dawes
    £3.40 an hour for driving lessons? Thats less than the minimum wage...they were £20 an hour 15 years ago???????
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prince Rupert)
    making the very people who benefit most from university i.e. the students themselves to fill the funding gap is surely the fairest solution
    I agree that the people who benefit the most should "fill the funding gap".

    Because many students don't benefit from their degrees, not all students should have to pay.

    The 21K threshold for paying will start in 2016 and will not be uprated for inflation between now and then.

    That means that with about 4% inflation a year, the threshold will be roughly what it is now.

    According to the student loan company, 26% of graduates in 2008 were in the income tax system but earning below the threshold. If at some point in the future they manage to get jobs, they probably won't get much over the threshold, but will still have to pay for the rest of most of their working lives-30 years is a long time to go on paying for a useless degree and three years of not earning a salary.

    If you have a quick look at unistats -for example look at UEL for Finance and Accounting you will see that only 15% of graduates in that subject got graduate jobs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doubledog)
    I agree that the people who benefit the most should "fill the funding gap".

    Because many students don't benefit from their degrees, not all students should have to pay.
    So Einstein.....how do you differentiate which students should pay and who should not?

    In theory you are saying thsoe doing degrees that we assume would get them jobs that would contribute to society should not have to pay....

    Do you think this would be fair?

    Think about it.....thats total bollo*.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by profoflife)
    So Einstein.....how do you differentiate which students should pay and who should not?

    In theory you are saying thsoe doing degrees that we assume would get them jobs that would contribute to society should not have to pay....

    Do you think this would be fair?

    Think about it.....thats total bollo*.
    A graduate tax pitched at the appropriate level wouldn't penalise those whose degrees hadn't improved their employment outcomes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PerigeeApogee)

    I graduate this year, and I'm Scottish.
    Whats you're debt situation like?

    What might you graduate in?

    Where are you planning on working?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doubledog)
    A graduate tax pitched at the appropriate level wouldn't penalise those whose degrees hadn't improved their employment outcomes.
    And how would you work that out?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.